Repositioning 'The Elements'
Rose, L. S., & Countryman, J. (2013). Repositioning ‘the elements’: How students talk about music. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 12(3): 45-64.
In this reading, Rose and Countryman question professional knowledge pertaining to both the importance and relevance of teaching the elements of music within school music curricula- ranging from kindergarten to grade twelve and beyond. The reading argues that, “the elements seek to simplify, to discriminate and categorize [and that] our students seek to relate, create, play, and celebrate” (55). They especially highlight their opinion that an entirely new “paradigm shift”(45) within the musical pedagogy across all school curriculum is called for. Through my personal experience, I find I can both agree and disagree with this argument. By choosing to take music courses in school rather than being directed or told to, I was able to feel driven, excited and ambitious toward furthering my education as opposed to forced and suppressed. However, through music education provided by schooling, I was primarily taught “by the books”, which hindered my creativity and emotional-exploration of my instruments and of music itself. What interested me about the reading was that Rose and Countryman (quite blatantly) “questioned professional knowledge”(45) while proposing that teaching the elements were not necessarily a positive influence on music students; for example they state this despite the studies behind “music [being] deemed to be both more satisfying and appreciated if [its constituent elements] are understood”(Mursell 1958, 150). Similarly, what surprised me about the reading was that they believe that entirely new alternatives for musical pedagogy are called for based on ways adolescent students respond and communicated about music. I personally favor that they choose to legitimize and accredit the opinions of students- yet I am surprised in the fact that most decision-making regarding school curricula is weighed upon many more factors. What frustrated me greatly throughout the reading was their discredit toward utilizing the elements of music to practically any extent; stating that the elements, “work as a framework of dominance, denying diversity [and] access”(45). From my standpoint, being someone who utilizes the elements, I see the elements as a means to define and understand music; a set of guidelines which should be used more as a starting-point/ “module”, in order to eventually break-free and truly be limitlessly creative. In fact, this excerpt was even included in the article; “When understood by teachers and students, [the elements] enable all other aspects of that subject domain to fall into place”(Elliott 1995, 244). After all, as stated by artist Pablo Picasso, “learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist”. Finally, I would ask the authors what kinds of methods do they have to present to students regarding changing the musical pedagogy after all! I understand that everyone learns differently and therefore I also assume it is crucial to have a variety of ways to effectively go about the teaching of music and its components!
In this reading, Rose and Countryman question professional knowledge pertaining to both the importance and relevance of teaching the elements of music within school music curricula- ranging from kindergarten to grade twelve and beyond. The reading argues that, “the elements seek to simplify, to discriminate and categorize [and that] our students seek to relate, create, play, and celebrate” (55). They especially highlight their opinion that an entirely new “paradigm shift”(45) within the musical pedagogy across all school curriculum is called for. Through my personal experience, I find I can both agree and disagree with this argument. By choosing to take music courses in school rather than being directed or told to, I was able to feel driven, excited and ambitious toward furthering my education as opposed to forced and suppressed. However, through music education provided by schooling, I was primarily taught “by the books”, which hindered my creativity and emotional-exploration of my instruments and of music itself. What interested me about the reading was that Rose and Countryman (quite blatantly) “questioned professional knowledge”(45) while proposing that teaching the elements were not necessarily a positive influence on music students; for example they state this despite the studies behind “music [being] deemed to be both more satisfying and appreciated if [its constituent elements] are understood”(Mursell 1958, 150). Similarly, what surprised me about the reading was that they believe that entirely new alternatives for musical pedagogy are called for based on ways adolescent students respond and communicated about music. I personally favor that they choose to legitimize and accredit the opinions of students- yet I am surprised in the fact that most decision-making regarding school curricula is weighed upon many more factors. What frustrated me greatly throughout the reading was their discredit toward utilizing the elements of music to practically any extent; stating that the elements, “work as a framework of dominance, denying diversity [and] access”(45). From my standpoint, being someone who utilizes the elements, I see the elements as a means to define and understand music; a set of guidelines which should be used more as a starting-point/ “module”, in order to eventually break-free and truly be limitlessly creative. In fact, this excerpt was even included in the article; “When understood by teachers and students, [the elements] enable all other aspects of that subject domain to fall into place”(Elliott 1995, 244). After all, as stated by artist Pablo Picasso, “learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist”. Finally, I would ask the authors what kinds of methods do they have to present to students regarding changing the musical pedagogy after all! I understand that everyone learns differently and therefore I also assume it is crucial to have a variety of ways to effectively go about the teaching of music and its components!
The Invisible Student: Understanding Social Identity Construction within Performing Ensembles
Hourigan, R. M. (2009). The invisible student: Understanding social identity construction within performing ensembles. Music Educators Journal 95(4): 34-38.
This article discusses a general term they use, “invisible students”, and proposes various ways to best help them to thrive in social environments and particularly within performing music ensembles. They exemplify a boy with special needs named Jason who suffers from a traumatic brain injury syndrome. However, the article goes on to highlight that Jason’s inability to “bond with his peers” wasn’t due to his social skills- it was the fact that he did not fit in with most kids simply since he was labeled with special needs and “ostracized” due to that fact... which is frustrating to hear. It was surprising to read that the issues that apply to students with special needs apply to all students: those of social identity. The article interested me because it stated how a person feels about their value to a group can directly affect their self-worth and identity; which they exemplified using Jason’s experience in his band- due to the fact that he had never connected well with his peers, that correlated to making himself feel like an inferior musician, which was not the case. Although this interested me, at the same time it frustrated me to look at things through this theory or “lens” (provided by researchers Michael Hogg and Deborah Terry); being “a social category within which one falls, and to which one belongs, provides a definition of who one is”. For the sake of his argument, Hourigan chose to use this rather restricting theoretical framework throughout the article in attempt to encourage social diversity and acceptance, despite the theory enforcing social restraint by stating there are “categories” in which “one belongs” and provides a set “definition” of who someone supposedly is. Despite this, I also found Hourigan to raise some interesting facts and suggestions to prevent the “invisible students” from being left out of said categories. For example, he suggests as a teacher to pair “above-average” students with “invisible students” as a way of encouraging/ modeling social acceptance among others of the ensemble. A surprising notion he had also raised was “the longer a teacher waits to provide information and model appropriate social behavior, the more vulnerable the group is to form a social hierarchy. Personally, I wasn’t aware the teacher had so much influence over adolescent behavior in and out of the classroom! Finally, I would ask the author why we should be “concerned” with these “invisible students”, and so adamant in placing them into a social group/ norm? In my opinion, many of these types of students actually prefer to keep to themselves, and I feel like intentionally doing things such as pairing them with students that have severely-contrasting personalities as a form of the “buddy-system” despite having positive intentions, may end up doing more harm than good! All students are different from each other, and all students thrive under various conditions. Therefore, we shouldn’t be focusing so much on placing them into social norms, and instead just focus on the commonality we all share- being unique.
This article discusses a general term they use, “invisible students”, and proposes various ways to best help them to thrive in social environments and particularly within performing music ensembles. They exemplify a boy with special needs named Jason who suffers from a traumatic brain injury syndrome. However, the article goes on to highlight that Jason’s inability to “bond with his peers” wasn’t due to his social skills- it was the fact that he did not fit in with most kids simply since he was labeled with special needs and “ostracized” due to that fact... which is frustrating to hear. It was surprising to read that the issues that apply to students with special needs apply to all students: those of social identity. The article interested me because it stated how a person feels about their value to a group can directly affect their self-worth and identity; which they exemplified using Jason’s experience in his band- due to the fact that he had never connected well with his peers, that correlated to making himself feel like an inferior musician, which was not the case. Although this interested me, at the same time it frustrated me to look at things through this theory or “lens” (provided by researchers Michael Hogg and Deborah Terry); being “a social category within which one falls, and to which one belongs, provides a definition of who one is”. For the sake of his argument, Hourigan chose to use this rather restricting theoretical framework throughout the article in attempt to encourage social diversity and acceptance, despite the theory enforcing social restraint by stating there are “categories” in which “one belongs” and provides a set “definition” of who someone supposedly is. Despite this, I also found Hourigan to raise some interesting facts and suggestions to prevent the “invisible students” from being left out of said categories. For example, he suggests as a teacher to pair “above-average” students with “invisible students” as a way of encouraging/ modeling social acceptance among others of the ensemble. A surprising notion he had also raised was “the longer a teacher waits to provide information and model appropriate social behavior, the more vulnerable the group is to form a social hierarchy. Personally, I wasn’t aware the teacher had so much influence over adolescent behavior in and out of the classroom! Finally, I would ask the author why we should be “concerned” with these “invisible students”, and so adamant in placing them into a social group/ norm? In my opinion, many of these types of students actually prefer to keep to themselves, and I feel like intentionally doing things such as pairing them with students that have severely-contrasting personalities as a form of the “buddy-system” despite having positive intentions, may end up doing more harm than good! All students are different from each other, and all students thrive under various conditions. Therefore, we shouldn’t be focusing so much on placing them into social norms, and instead just focus on the commonality we all share- being unique.